DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first-to-invent provisions.
This is in reply to papers filed on 2026-07-02. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 15 is/are independent.
The rejection(s) of claims on double patenting grounds are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments except as specifically set forth below. The claims of U.S. Patent 8990951 (App 13435990) and U.S. Patent 9547754 (App 14619183) explicitly disclose identifying earlier-received streams as infringing based on comparisons to later-received reference streams. Thus, those rejections are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6-7, 13, 19-20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to overcome the double patenting rejections herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
With respect to claim(s) 1 (see page(s) 6-7 of Applicant’s Remarks), Applicant argues that the prior art of record (in particular, U.S. Patent 8655826 to Drewry et al. (hereinafter "Drewry '826")) does not disclose “identify the indexed content as being unauthorized”. However, Drewry '826 explicitly discloses [Drewry '826 c. 37, l. 24-31] this feature (emphasis added):
Promptly after implementation of Identification Technology, and at intervals that are reasonably timed throughout each year to achieve the goal of eliminating infringing content, UGC Services should use Identification Technology throughout their services to remove infringing content that was uploaded before Reference Material pertaining to such content was provided.
While Drewry '826 does not explicitly disclose that such a later-added reference stream is compared as it is being uploaded to previously received indexed content, U.S. Publication 20090327334 to Rodriguez et al. (hereinafter "Rodriguez '334") discloses comparing later streams as they are being uploaded [Rodriguez '334 ¶ 0003, 0023, 0054]. As detailed in the rejections below, it would have been obvious to have modified Drewry '826 in view of Rodriguez '334 to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the remaining claim(s) is/are based on Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and have been considered as detailed above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR § 3.73(b).
Claim(s) of Application 19/040405 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claim(s) of U.S. Patent 8990951. The table below sets forth exemplary claims.
19040405 (Instant Application)
U.S. Patent 8990951 (App 13435990)
1. A system comprising: a hardware processor configured to: receive at least a portion of a content stream; compare at least the portion of the content stream to indexed content at a predetermined frequency to determine a duration for matching content between at least the portion of the content stream and the indexed content; determine whether the duration for the matching content is at least equal to a minimum match duration threshold value, wherein the minimum match duration threshold indicates an unauthorized duration for matching content; and responsive to determining the duration for the matching content is at least equal to the minimum match duration threshold value, identify the indexed content as being unauthorized.
Patented claim 1 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
1. A system, comprising: a memory that has stored thereon computer executable components; a processor that executes the following computer executable components stored in the memory: an indexing component that indexes a first live stream of uploaded content; a matching component that compares a second live stream of validated content to the first live stream of the uploaded content, wherein the second live stream is acquired after the first live stream is acquired, and identifies unauthorized content in the uploaded content before streaming of the first live stream and the second live stream is completed, wherein the unauthorized content is determined to potentially lack a right associated with content of the second live stream, and wherein, in response to a minimum match duration not being met, the matching component compares the second live stream to the first live stream at a predetermined frequency until the minimum match duration is met, wherein the predetermined frequency is based on a function of a value of the validated content; and a claim component that issues a flag associated with the unauthorized content in response to the matching component identifying the unauthorized content and the unauthorized content meeting the minimum match duration.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to: responsive to identifying the indexed content as being unauthorized, associate a flag with the indexed content.
Patented claim 1 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to: generate a claim indicating the indexed content is unauthorized.
Patented claim 1 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein to compare at least the portion of the content stream to the indexed content at the predetermined frequency, the hardware processor is further configured to: compare at least the portion of the content stream to the indexed content once per a time period until the minimum match duration threshold value is met, and wherein the time period is less than the minimum match duration threshold value.
Patented claim 5 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the matching component matches the validated content as it is received against the uploaded content once per a time period.
5. The system of claim 2, wherein the time period is less than a minimum match duration.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the time period is based on a value associated with the content stream, and wherein the value decreases as time increases.
Patented claim 4 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the cost of matching content is based on computational costs and the usefulness of early detection is based on a diminishing value of the validated content as time passes.
8. A method comprising: receiving, by a hardware processor, at least a portion of a content stream; comparing, by a hardware processor, at least the portion of the content stream to indexed content at a predetermined frequency to determine a duration for matching content between at least the portion of the content stream and the indexed content; determining, by a hardware processor, whether the duration for the matching content is at least equal to a minimum match duration threshold value, wherein the minimum match duration threshold indicates an unauthorized duration for matching content; and responsive to determining the duration for the matching content is at least equal to the minimum match duration threshold value, identifying, by a hardware processor, the indexed content as being unauthorized.
Patented claim 9 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
9. A method, comprising: using a processor to execute computer executable instructions stored in a memory to perform the following acts: indexing a first stream of uploaded content; comparing a second stream of validated content and the first stream of uploaded content, wherein the second stream is acquired after the first stream is acquired; in response to not meeting a minimum match duration, comparing the second stream to the first stream at a predetermined frequency until a minimum match duration is met, wherein the predetermined frequency is based on a function of a value of the validated content; identifying unauthorized content in the uploaded content before streaming of the first stream and the second stream is finished, wherein the unauthorized content is determined to potentially lack a right associated with content of the second stream; and issuing a flag associated with the unauthorized content in response to identifying unauthorized content and a portion of the unauthorized content meeting the minimum match duration.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the method further comprises: responsive to identifying the indexed content as being unauthorized, associating, by the hardware processor, a flag with the indexed content.
Patented claim 9 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
11. The method of claim 8, wherein the method further comprises: generating, by the hardware processor, a claim indicating the indexed content is unauthorized.
Patented claim 9 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
12. The method of claim 8, wherein comparing at least the portion of the content stream to the indexed content at the predetermined frequency further comprises: comparing, by the hardware processor, at least the portion of the content stream to the indexed content once per a time period until the minimum match duration threshold value is met, wherein the time period is less than the minimum match duration threshold value.
Patented claim 11 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the comparing the second stream of validated content against the indexed uploaded content is performed once per a time period.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive at least a portion of a content stream; compare at least the portion of the content stream to indexed content at a predetermined frequency to determine a duration for matching content between at least the portion of the content stream and the indexed content; determine whether the duration for the matching content is at least equal to a minimum match duration threshold value, wherein the minimum match duration threshold indicates an unauthorized duration for matching content; and responsive to determining the duration for the matching content is at least equal to the minimum match duration threshold value, identify the indexed content as being unauthorized.
Patented claim 16 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
16. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions, that in response to execution, cause a computing system to perform operations, comprising: indexing a first stream of uploaded content; comparing a second stream of validated content and the first stream of uploaded content, wherein the second stream is acquired after the first stream is acquired; in response to not meeting a minimum match duration, comparing the second stream to the first stream at a predetermined frequency until a minimum match duration is met, wherein the predetermined frequency is based on a function of a value of the validated content; identifying unauthorized content in the uploaded content before streaming of the first stream and the second stream is finished, wherein the unauthorized content is determined to potentially lack a right associated with content of the second stream; and issuing a flag associated with the unauthorized content in response to identifying unauthorized content and a portion of the unauthorized content meeting the minimum match duration.
16. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: responsive to identifying the indexed content as being unauthorized, associate a flag with the indexed content.
Patented claim 16 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: generate a claim indicating the indexed content is unauthorized.
Patented claim 16 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
Claim(s) of Application 19/040405 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claim(s) of U.S. Patent 9547754 . The table below sets forth exemplary claims.
19040405 (Instant Application)
U.S. Patent 9547754 (App 14619183)
1. A system comprising: a hardware processor configured to: receive at least a portion of a content stream; compare at least the portion of the content stream to indexed content at a predetermined frequency to determine a duration for matching content between at least the portion of the content stream and the indexed content; determine whether the duration for the matching content is at least equal to a minimum match duration threshold value, wherein the minimum match duration threshold indicates an unauthorized duration for matching content; and responsive to determining the duration for the matching content is at least equal to the minimum match duration threshold value, identify the indexed content as being unauthorized.
Patented claim 1 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
1. A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, the memory having stored therein computer-executable instructions, the instructions when executed by the processor causing the processor to perform the steps comprising: receiving a user uploaded content stream; incrementally receiving a plurality of portions of a validated content stream after the user uploaded content stream is received; identifying a first portion of the plurality of portions of the validated content stream that matches a portion of the user uploaded content stream; comparing remaining portions of the plurality of portions of the validated content stream to the uploaded content stream as the remaining portions of the validated content stream are incrementally received, each comparison performed at a predetermined frequency from a previous comparison of the validated content stream and the user uploaded content stream; determining whether unauthorized content in the user uploaded content stream meets a continuous minimum match duration threshold at a time of each comparison; identifying unauthorized content in the user uploaded content stream responsive to the user uploaded content stream meeting the continuous minimum match duration threshold, wherein the unauthorized content potentially lacks a right associated with the validated content stream; and issuing a flag associated with the unauthorized content in response to identifying the unauthorized content meeting the continuous minimum match duration threshold.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to: responsive to identifying the indexed content as being unauthorized, associate a flag with the indexed content.
Patented claim 1 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the minimum match duration threshold value is set by a copyright holder of the content stream.
Patented claim 2 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the continuous minimum match duration threshold is set by a copyright holder of the validated content.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein to compare at least the portion of the content stream to the indexed content at the predetermined frequency, the hardware processor is further configured to: compare at least the portion of the content stream to the indexed content once per a time period until the minimum match duration threshold value is met, and wherein the time period is less than the minimum match duration threshold value.
Patented claim 7 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the predetermined frequency is a reoccurring time period that the user uploaded content stream is continuously compared to the validated content stream until the continuous minimum match duration threshold is met, the frequency being less than the continuous minimum match duration threshold.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the time period is based on a value associated with the content stream, and wherein the value decreases as time increases.
Patented claim 6 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
4. The system of claim 1, further comprising: determining the predetermined frequency based on a function of a cost of matching unauthorized content and a value of early detection of the unauthorized content.
6. The system of claim 4, wherein the value of early detection of the unauthorized content is a diminishing value over time.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the time period is further based on a latency of matching resulting from a number of lookups of the indexed content.
Patented claim 5 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
4. The system of claim 1, further comprising: determining the predetermined frequency based on a function of a cost of matching unauthorized content and a value of early detection of the unauthorized content.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the cost of matching unauthorized content is based on a latency of matching resulting from a number of lookups of the validated content based on the frequency.
8. A method comprising: receiving, by a hardware processor, at least a portion of a content stream; comparing, by a hardware processor, at least the portion of the content stream to indexed content at a predetermined frequency to determine a duration for matching content between at least the portion of the content stream and the indexed content; determining, by a hardware processor, whether the duration for the matching content is at least equal to a minimum match duration threshold value, wherein the minimum match duration threshold indicates an unauthorized duration for matching content; and responsive to determining the duration for the matching content is at least equal to the minimum match duration threshold value, identifying, by a hardware processor, the indexed content as being unauthorized.
Patented claim 9 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
9. A method, comprising: receiving, by a system including a processor, a user uploaded content stream; incrementally receiving, by the system, a plurality of portions of a validated content stream after the user uploaded content stream is received; identifying, by the system, a first portion of the plurality of portions of the validated content stream that matches a portion of the user uploaded content stream; comparing by the system, remaining portions of the plurality of portions of the validated content stream to the uploaded content stream as the remaining portions of the validated content stream are incrementally received, each comparison performed at a predetermined frequency from a previous comparison of the validated content stream and the user uploaded content stream; determining, by the system, whether unauthorized content in the user uploaded content stream meets a continuous minimum match duration threshold at a time of each comparison; identifying, by the system, unauthorized content in the user uploaded content stream responsive to the user uploaded content stream meeting the continuous minimum match duration threshold, wherein the unauthorized content potentially lacks a right associated with the validated content stream; and generating, by the system, a flag associated with the unauthorized content in response to the identifying the unauthorized content meeting the continuous minimum match duration threshold.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the method further comprises: responsive to identifying the indexed content as being unauthorized, associating, by the hardware processor, a flag with the indexed content.
Patented claim 9 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
10. The method of claim 8, wherein the minimum match duration threshold value is set by a copyright holder of the content stream.
Patented claim 10 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the continuous minimum match duration threshold is set by a copyright holder of the validated content.
12. The method of claim 8, wherein comparing at least the portion of the content stream to the indexed content at the predetermined frequency further comprises: comparing, by the hardware processor, at least the portion of the content stream to the indexed content once per a time period until the minimum match duration threshold value is met, wherein the time period is less than the minimum match duration threshold value.
Patented claim 15 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
15. The method of claim 9, wherein the frequency is a reoccurring time period that the validated content stream is continuously compared to the user uploaded content stream until the continuous minimum match duration threshold is met, the frequency being less than the continuous minimum match duration threshold.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the time period is based on a value associated with the content stream, and wherein the value decreases as time increases.
Patented claim 14 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
12. The method of claim 9, further comprising selecting the predetermined frequency based on a function of a cost of matching unauthorized content and a value of early detection of the unauthorized content.
14. The method of claim 12, wherein the value of early detection of the unauthorized content is a diminishing value over time.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive at least a portion of a content stream; compare at least the portion of the content stream to indexed content at a predetermined frequency to determine a duration for matching content between at least the portion of the content stream and the indexed content; determine whether the duration for the matching content is at least equal to a minimum match duration threshold value, wherein the minimum match duration threshold indicates an unauthorized duration for matching content; and responsive to determining the duration for the matching content is at least equal to the minimum match duration threshold value, identify the indexed content as being unauthorized.
Patented claim 16 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
16. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution, cause a system including a processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a user uploaded content stream; incrementally receiving a plurality of portions of a validated content stream after the user uploaded content stream is received; identifying a first portion of the plurality of portions of the validated content stream that matches a portion of the user uploaded content stream; comparing remaining portions of the plurality of portions of the validated content stream to the uploaded content stream as the remaining portions of the validated content stream are incrementally received, each comparison performed at a predetermined frequency from a previous comparison of the validated content stream and the user uploaded content stream; determining whether unauthorized content in the user uploaded content stream meets a continuous minimum match duration threshold at a time of each comparison; identifying unauthorized content in the user uploaded content stream responsive to the user uploaded content stream meeting the continuous minimum match duration threshold, wherein the unauthorized content violates a right associated with the validated content stream; and issuing, by the system, a copyright violation associated with the unauthorized content in response to the identifying the unauthorized content meeting the continuous minimum match duration threshold.
16. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: responsive to identifying the indexed content as being unauthorized, associate a flag with the indexed content.
Patented claim 16 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the time period is based on a value associated with the content stream, and wherein the value decreases as time increases.
Patented claim 21 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, further comprising selecting the predetermined frequency based on a function of a cost of matching unauthorized content and a value of early detection of the unauthorized content.
21. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the value of early detection of the unauthorized content is a diminishing value over time.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the time period is further based on a latency of matching resulting from a number of lookups of the indexed content.
Patented claim 20 (reproduced herein for convenience) discloses all of the limitations of the instant claim.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, further comprising selecting the predetermined frequency based on a function of a cost of matching unauthorized content and a value of early detection of the unauthorized content.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the cost of matching unauthorized content is based on a latency of matching resulting from a number of lookups of the validated content based on the frequency.
Summary of Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following table summarizes the rejections set forth in detail below of the claims over the prior art.
Claim No.
Drewry '826 in view of Rodriguez '334
1
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
2
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
3
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
4
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
5
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
6
7
8
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
9
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
10
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
11
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
12
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
13
14
15
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
16
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
17
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
18
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
19
20
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (pre-AIA ) that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 103(a) (pre-AIA ) that forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 15-18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8655826 to Drewry et al. (hereinafter "Drewry '826") in view of U.S. Publication 20090327334 to Rodriguez et al. (hereinafter "Rodriguez '334") . Drewry '826 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Rodriguez '334 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), and 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Per claim 1 (independent):
Drewry '826 discloses a system comprising a hardware processor configured to perform operations (processor(s), memory, computer readable media, storage, executable instructions [Drewry '826 c. 12 l. 20-59, col 31 l. 36-66])
Drewry '826 discloses receive at least a portion of a content stream (in some embodiments, declares a match when a segment of at least a threshold length matches, e.g. a number of minutes [Drewry '826 c. 19 l. 7-50, c. 22 l. 10-45, c. 27 l. 20-50, Fig. 13A, Fig. 24B]; granularity of 1 second [Drewry '826 c. 19 l. 25-36])
Drewry '826 does not disclose compare [, as the content stream is being received,] at least the portion of the content stream to indexed content at a predetermined frequency to determine a duration for matching content between at least the portion of the content stream and the indexed content
However, Drewry '826 discloses compare [, after the content stream has been received,] at least the portion of the content stream to indexed content at a predetermined frequency to determine a duration for matching content between at least the portion of the content stream and the indexed content (performs comparison when suspect content is uploaded first and reference content is uploaded later [Drewry '826 c. 37, l. 24-31]; in some embodiments, declares a match when a segment of at least a threshold length matches, e.g. a number of minutes [Drewry '826 c. 19 l. 7-50, c. 22 l. 10-45, c. 27 l. 20-50, Fig. 13A, Fig. 24B]; granularity of 1 second [Drewry '826 c. 19 l. 25-36])
Drewry '826 discloses determine whether the duration for the matching content is at least equal to a minimum match duration threshold value, wherein the minimum match duration threshold indicates an unauthorized duration for matching content (in some embodiments, declares a match when a segment of at least a threshold length matches, e.g. a number of minutes [Drewry '826 c. 19 l. 7-50, c. 22 l. 10-45, c. 27 l. 20-50, Fig. 13A, Fig. 24B]; granularity of 1 second [Drewry '826 c. 19 l. 25-36])
Drewry '826 discloses responsive to determining the duration for the matching content is at least equal to the minimum match duration threshold value, identify the indexed content as being unauthorized (performs comparison when suspect content is uploaded first and reference content is uploaded later [Drewry '826 c. 37, l. 24-31]; in some embodiments, declares a match when a segment of at least a threshold length matches, e.g. a number of minutes [Drewry '826 c. 19 l. 7-50, c. 22 l. 10-45, c. 27 l. 20-50, Fig. 13A, Fig. 24B])
Further:
Rodriguez '334 discloses compare at least the portion of the content stream to indexed content at a predetermined frequency to determine a duration for matching content between at least the portion of the content stream and the indexed content (performs video matching in-line as video is being uploaded [Rodriguez '334 ¶ 0054]; video matching system identifies unauthorized videos [Rodriguez '334 ¶ 0003, 0023, 0054])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Drewry '826 with the comparison during reception of second stream of Rodriguez '334 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
compare at least the portion of the content stream to indexed content at a predetermined frequency to determine a duration for matching content between at least the portion of the content stream and the indexed content
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because comparing the first-received indexed stream to the second-received content stream as the second-received content stream is being received would provide the earliest possible detection of the unauthorized indexed stream of Drewry '826. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Rodriguez '334 teaches [Rodriguez '334 ¶ 0003, 0023, 0054] modifying a content stream comparison scheme [Drewry '826 c. 37, l. 24-31] such as that of Drewry '826 to arrive at the claimed invention; because Rodriguez '334 and Drewry '826 are in the same field of endeavor; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (comparing current stream to indexed stream as current stream is received [Rodriguez '334 ¶ 0003, 0023, 0054]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (content stream comparison scheme [Drewry '826 c. 37, l. 24-31]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (comparing current stream to indexed stream as current stream is received [Rodriguez '334 ¶ 0003, 0023, 0054]) to known devices and/or methods (content stream comparison scheme [Drewry '826 c. 37, l. 24-31]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (content stream comparison scheme identifies earlier loaded infringing content [Drewry '826 c. 37, l. 24-31] as later content stream is received [Rodriguez '334 ¶ 0003, 0023, 0054]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Per claim 2 (dependent on claim 1):
Drewry '826 in view of Rodriguez '334 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Drewry ‘826 discloses responsive to identifying the indexed content as being unauthorized, associate a flag with the indexed content (in some embodiments, declares a match when a segment of at least a threshold length matches, e.g. a number of minutes [Drewry '826 c. 19 l. 7-50, c. 22 l. 10-45, c. 27 l. 20-50, Fig. 13A, Fig. 24B])
Per claim 3 (dependent on claim 1):
Drewry ‘826 in view of Rodriguez ‘334 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Drewry ‘826 discloses the minimum match duration threshold value is set by a copyright holder of the content stream (rules specified by copyright holder, including minimum duration threshold [Drewry '826 c. 6 l. 37-40, c. 22 l. 10-45, c. 24 l. 9-20])
Per claim 4 (dependent on claim 1):
Drewry ‘826 in view of Rodriguez ‘334 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Drewry ‘826 discloses generate a claim indicating the indexed content is unauthorized (if a match, perform an action, e.g. a takedown and/or a notification to the owner and the uploader [Drewry '826 c. 25 l. 55-65, Figs. 16-17, Fig. 8, c. 24 l. 9-19, Fig. 4A at 159, 161])
Per claim 5 (dependent on claim 1):
Drewry ‘826 in view of Rodriguez ‘334 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Drewry ‘826 discloses to compare at least the portion of the content stream to the indexed content at the predetermined frequency, the hardware processor is further configured to compare at least the portion of the content stream to the indexed content once per a time period until the minimum match duration threshold value is met, and wherein the time period is less than the minimum match duration threshold value (in some embodiments, declares a match when a segment of at least a threshold length matches, e.g. a number of minutes [Drewry '826 c. 19 l. 7-50, c. 22 l. 10-45, c. 27 l. 20-50, Fig. 13A, Fig. 24B]; granularity of 1 second [Drewry '826 c. 19 l. 25-36])
Per claim 8 (independent):
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 9 (dependent on claim 8):
Drewry ‘826 in view of Rodriguez ‘334 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 2 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 10 (dependent on claim 8):
Drewry ‘826 in view of Rodriguez ‘334 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 3 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 11 (dependent on claim 8):
Drewry ‘826 in view of Rodriguez ‘334 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 4 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 12 (dependent on claim 8):
Drewry ‘826 in view of Rodriguez ‘334 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 5 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 15 (independent):
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 16 (dependent on claim 15):
Drewry ‘826 in view of Rodriguez ‘334 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 2 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 17 (dependent on claim 15):
Drewry ‘826 in view of Rodriguez ‘334 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 4 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 18 (dependent on claim 15):
Drewry ‘826 in view of Rodriguez ‘334 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 5 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C PARSONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1475. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWRF 7:30-4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jung Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms.
/THEODORE C PARSONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights